It depends on jf you have any parts to begin with or not. Starting from zero, a basic SNAP would cost about $30 (and goes up for more "advanced" versions) but leave you with enough raw materials for the bulk of two or three more.

0

Hello. I am Indigo of the Rainbow Clan. You Nerfed my father. Prepare to die.

It depends on jf you have any parts to begin with or not. Starting from zero, a basic SNAP would cost about $30 (and goes up for more "advanced" versions) but leave you with enough raw materials for the bulk of two or three more.

how much does your versions of a snap cause i only got the aluminium rod and fender washers

It depends on jf you have any parts to begin with or not. Starting from zero, a basic SNAP would cost about $30 (and goes up for more "advanced" versions) but leave you with enough raw materials for the bulk of two or three more.

how much does your versions of a snap cause i only got the aluminium rod and fender washers

To be more clear, my SNAP-1 is a basic SNAP....so, about $30.

0

Hello. I am Indigo of the Rainbow Clan. You Nerfed my father. Prepare to die.

Alright, finally finished with the "directory" in the first post. I deleted the links with broken pictures and nixed the colored "tags", replacing them with brief descriptions - something taer suggested to me. I originally thought it would be too much work, but it ended up taking about the same amount of time. Plus its a lot more useful this way.

If you are making a SNAP pistol for purely sidearm purposes, the spring can probably be replaced with a cheaper alternative, like party popper springs. The ones I found resemble BBB springs in strength, but are not made of stainless steel.
I've used mine for a war and fired ~100 shots in testing with no noticeable drop in power.
It may be weaker than a normal SNAP, but it outperforms my BBB due to superior airseal.
You also don't need to cut the spring.

On a SNAP, if you mount the stock correctly and use good form when you shoot, it [cheek diddle] is not a problem. I always make sure I can shoot with a good solid cheek weld on my guns, as it improves consistency (in other words, it's more accurate). This one reason why a stock mounted on top of the gun is better than one mounted underneath, as far as i'm concerned.

I disagree. I absolutely hate my two snaps with the stock mounted on the top. The priming is slow and awkward, and it's much more difficult to get an accurate line of sight since your head is so much higher than the plunger tube and the barrel. If you make your stock long enough so you have room for your face to sit comfortably behind the plunger path, it really isn't a problem.

With that said, I made two new SNAPs since I got back from Alaska:This post will be updated when these are done being painted.

Edit: As promised:

They're unique because they use thick wood as the trigger material:

This gives a more comfortable trigger, it completely conceals the clothespin, and it's extremely sturdy because a. you have more surface area for your glue, and b. you can actually screw the wood to the clothespin itself:

Also, in the interest of science I deliberately destroyed one of my SNAPs just to see how sturdy it was.

(keep in mind I unscrewed everything prior to banging it on the cement curb). Interestingly, despite being attached with solely hot glue, the clothespin was extremely difficult to tear off (I even attacked it with a pair of pliars), and the handle and foregrip came off after a few good thwacks. Suffice to say, these things are pretty damn durable although not invincible.

Lastly, I've had some people asking about specifics (measurements, materials) of my SNAP builds. Unfortunately for measurements You really just have to do that yourself. Every SNAP is going to be different depending on how long your plunger head ends up being and how "deep" your front and back bushings are (yes, they vary by manufacturer). The only thing that is crucial is you get the distance from your front bushing to the hole for the roofing nail correct. If you don't, your plunger will either catch too soon, limiting your available air output, or catch too late creating deadspace and/or making the spring impossible to further compress. If it's your first SNAP build or you've had problems with the latter situation, I'd suggest elongating the back because you can always add 3/4" CPVC or other material to increase your spring compression. Cutting your plunger tube 13-14" will give you more room to work with.

Also, because standing in front of your hardware store's loose parts section can be pretty daunting, this is how I construct my self-centering superlative plunger heads (exact part dimensions):

This gives a more comfortable trigger, it completely conceals the clothespin, and it's extremely sturdy because a. you have more surface area for your glue, and b. you can actually screw the wood to the clothespin itself

If you're going that far, why don't you just mill the top portion of your trigger into a replication of half of a wooden clothespin, and replace the moving side altogether, thus negating the need for glue/screws entirely?

You've never really looked at a clothespin, have you? They are incredibly simply fabricated. That's why they are cheap.

In fact, as far as I can see, all he would have to do to have the upper section of the trigger replace the clothespin is grind/dremel/drill out a half-circle to rest the back portion on the spring. he's already got a notch cut there that would fit the forward arm of the spring.

He's not saying it's costly in terms of materials. He's saying it's time consuming. And, there's no savings, even if time were equal - what are you going to do with half a clothespin w/o a spring? Use it as a Barbie-scale doorstop?

As for a [k25], it's pretty large. I have one in my SNAP-a-Blast, but it catches on the nail.

Thanks Taer! I'm trying to limit ranges to about 70-80 feet. Is there a major difference in strength between [k25] and [k26] that makes the possible nail catching worth it? Or should I just shorten the plunger draw?

All those 110'+ ranges that I measured a while back were with K25s. I've since switched back, since Umpa's [k26] sprung SNAPbow was scaring people at SeptembWAR. A [k25] is nice, insofar as you can easily get a 7.5" stroke out of it and it primes really smoothly--IF you get your pin just right. They cause a ton of catch issues. For SNAPs, you really want something that's as narrow as is practically possible. A [k26] is great, especially if you're using a cpvc plunger shaft. For the kinds of ranges you describe, I recommend the following: cut a [k26] in half, and make a 1/2-length SNAPbow. They're pretty sweet, and they shoot up to about 85', while being scary compact.

I apologize for not keeping the first post very updated in the past couple of months (I've been on a bit of a nerf hiatus), but I think I just got everything. Some real cool stuff has been coming out in the Snap-scene lately, specifically Stark's rainbow catch and Mod Man's endcap variation of it. Props, guys - some pretty revolutionary stuff is happening with Snap's right now.

The Rainbow is not a SNAP. The Rainbow is not meant to make the SNAP obsolete. The Rainbow has nothing to do with the SNAP.

This blaster's closest relative is the +bow, as both blasters have a plate and notch style catch. The design goal of the Rainbow was to fabricate a +bow catch that would be contained within the plunger tube, eliminating the need for sideplates, subsequently cutting down on machining time and cost per blaster. If anything, it is the traditional +bow that is obsolete as a result of the Rainbow, not the SNAP.

Uh, yeah. The Rainbow has nothing to do with the SNAP. Neither does Modman's catch.

^Truth. If it has a Rainbow catch, it's a Rainbow. If it has a SNAP (clothespin) catch, it's a SNAP. If it uses Carbon's clothespin plate trigger, it's an unholy hybrid of the 2, invented solely to make categorization like this difficult. The fact that Rainbows look like SNAPs, and will undoubtedly partially replace SNAPs as the go-to homemade for the poor and lazy, doesn't make them SNAPs, since the only consistent thing shared by all SNAPs is a clothespin trigger and a catch on the plunger head.

Let's try again: A SNAP is a blaster whose catch relies upon a clothespin (pivoting) trigger, the pin of which retains the plunger via a plate or other surface raised above the level of the plunger rod, whereas a Rainbow utilizes an internal catchplate assembly that retains the plunger rod via a notch or depression cut therein.

This definition STILL leaves the CPT Mk. 2 out in the cold a bit, but it really has more in common with the Rainbow.I suggest that we regard it as a SNAP/Rainbow hybrid, at least until Carbon comes up with an alternate pseudo-acronym.

Here's the simplest definition I can think of:
A SNAP does not use a flat, vertical catch plate, but rather a pin contacting the plunger (rod or head), mounted on a clothespin trigger.
-The exclusion of a flat vertical cath plate rules out both Rainbow and Plusbow.
-The statement 'A pin contacting the plunger' is accurate with the CPT2 because, well, it does. It just adds a cradle to improve the catch surface area.

0

As I said I have not not alot of testes yet but I will be once I finish the mod.